PLOT VERSUS WORDS

[pilot27407]

I actually did a lot of reading in this first, short, part of my life. Let’s see, got started at the age of seven or eight and during the first years it was laboriously slow, but got better, much better with time.
Averaged, let’s say, five books per month, less in the beginning and more later, as I’ve developed the taste.
There are twelve months in a year, right?
Now, that times fifty,… equals what? A nice number.
Fifty percent was fiction, the rest, you name it. I’ll leave the rest, to rest and let’s talk, for a moment about fiction. For, I came across two major trends, and little in between.
There were those books with a riveting plot, which kept me in my chair (that’s where I read and write), till I was finished, just had to find out what was going to happen next.
And then, there were those so skillfully crafted, that their words sung in my heart and brought tears to my eyes.
Seldom did I find books which masterfully combined the two elements.
So, now the question, which of those two would you rather read?
And if you care to elaborate, why?
But, don't come and say that you want the masterpiece, the perfect blend of the two.

 

[drachin8]

I must admit I always cringe somewhat at posts requiring a reader to choose between two and only two elements of writing for some discussion. It feels inherently untrue to the art and science of writing. I don't personally enjoy a book because of a single strong element--it is always the combination that makes each reading unique. Plot, wordsmithing, pacing, characterization, etc. While these concepts are distinct, there is a certain overlap to how they affect each other, and that affects my enjoyment of the book.

So in all my reading, I cannot say I have noticed either of your mentioned trends. Each book is an individual with its own strengths and weaknesses, and each book suits a specific reading mood for me.

I am sorry this isn't the answer you are looking for and doesn't fit into the dichotomy of your discussion, but there it is.




-Michelle

 

[C.M.C.]

I think both qualities are equally important. I can read a book that lacks one or the other, but the deficiency is apparent and in the forefront of my mind the entire time.

 

[pilot27407]

Thanks Michelle. Now, ‘pacing, characterization, etc’ is part of the ‘wordsmithing’ , the way you tell a story. There are great plot books and great ‘wordsmithing ones.
For example, Homer, Dumas, Cooper, Verne, Wells (to mention but a few) are the ‘plotters’, while Dante, Shakespeare, Hemingway (to just scratch the surface) are the ‘smiths’. Each group with its defined strength, lacking, never the less, some of the vigor of the others.

And to C.M.C. I’m not talking about a ‘deficient’ piece of work, God knows there are plenty. I’m referring to ‘classics’, but those who still have their strong points, in one of the two groups. We read the first group for its action and the second for its crafty way.
And then, we read Tolsoty’s War and Peace, for a perfect merger of the two.

 

[virtue_summer]

If I absolutely have to choose between a good story and good writing, then I'll choose the good story. I don't think great writing has ever brought tears to my eyes by itself. Great stories have, even if the writer wasn't exactly known for having a poetic style. When I personally read a book without great style but with a great story, the story can make me forget the style (most of the time). When I read a book with great style but with no story or a bad story all I can think is "what a waste". This person spent so much time crafting pretty phrases, but didn't come up with anything worth saying.

I don't think it's always necessary to choose, though. Ray Bradbury wrote stories that are great reads and that also display a kind of poetry. My favorite classic novel, A Tale of Two Cities, both kept me intrigued with the story and was written in a very poetic fashion. Contemporary historical novelist Tracy Chevalier seems to me to have acheived a nice balance between style and story. Shakespeare, of course, was the epitomy of great stories and great writing.

 

[Soccer Mom]

The greatest writers include both magical language and compelling stories.
Personally, I'm a sucker for a great story, but if it is told in an inept way, I won't finish it.

I appreciate the art of language, but beautiful language alone is just empty noise to me. I read for entertainment. I need things to happen.

Most things I read have a measure of a compelling story told in an interesting way.

 

[drachin8]

I would have to disagree, pilot. Let us take pacing for instance. Pacing is of course affected by the words chosen, but doesn't it also affect the gripping plot and how that plot comes across? Is there also truly a difference between a carefully wordsmithed sentence which makes you weep at its beauty and a carefully wordsmithed sentence that thrusts the plot forward and refuses to release you? And how can words be beautiful without the story to give them greater meaning? Which leads more into my point that the elements of writing are heavily intertwined. If you break down a story, these elements are by definition distinct, but they all work together and become inseparable in the final product.

It may be that we simply perceive the components of books a bit differently, though. Nothing wrong with that, although it may give you some issues in keeping this discussion on the precise two lines that interest you. I have already started flubbing that up. Hehe. Again, sorry.




-Michelle

 

[CaroGirl]

You know what wins for me? A combination of story and character. If I care about a character and want to know what happens to her, the book has me. That said, however, the same book can lose me if the writing fails.

Toni Morrison's Beloved, for example, had characters that I cared about and a story that had real meaning, but the writing made that novel transcendent for me.

 

[Mr Flibble]

If you break down a story, these elements are by definition distinct, but they all work together and become inseparable in the final product.

Exactly. I prefer to hear the symphony rather than only listen to the guy with the big drum.

I like great characters above both the elements suggested by the OP, but if really pushed I'd prefer a great story with bland style to all style and no substance.

 

[pilot27407]

I didn’t intended to discuss ‘dime a dozen’ works, but those of the great writers who, never the less, fall predominantly into one of the two classes. Shakespeare’s work, in my humble opinion, has it’s strength in the mastery of the written word and can paint a picture that you can actually see. His work has a definite philosophical tendency. On the plot side, well, he’s a little sluggish, doesn’t have, par example, the action effect of Homer, Dumas or Wells.

 

[CaroGirl]

Um, I still think it's plot and character, no matter how old or "classic" the work in question. Can I mention The Catcher in the Rye, or is that a dime-a-dozen? Something by Ayn Rand? How about Sophie's Choice?

Anyway, I think Romeo and Juliet works, for example, because you care about those kids and what happens to them. They're in love and can't be together. Again, what makes the play transcendent is Shakespeare's glorious poetry.

Great Expectations and Oliver Twist are great works of art because you care about Pip and Oliver. They're sympathetic characters to whom interesting and terrible things happen. That combo is irresistible. And of course, it helps that Dickens could fair turn a phrase.

btw, your OP didn't say anything about only discussing classics.

 

[Mr Flibble]

hey wait, we're restricted only to certain authors / what you see as classics now?

No fair!

 

[josephwise]

I didn’t intended to discuss ‘dime a dozen’ works, but those of the great writers who, never the less, fall predominantly into one of the two classes. Shakespeare’s work, in my humble opinion, has it’s strength in the mastery of the written word and can paint a picture that you can actually see. His work has a definite philosophical tendency. On the plot side, well, he’s a little sluggish, doesn’t have, par example, the action effect of Homer, Dumas or Wells.

I think Shakespeare masters both. For example, Henry IV part 1 has a more riveting plot than anything else written by anyone else. It's a definite page turner, and so are most of his other works. I guess that's subjective, but then I don't think a topic like this could be otherwise.

 

[drachin8]

Actually, IdiotsRUs, you are restricted to the Berenstain Bears childrens book series. And.....GO!




-Michelle

 

[pilot27407]

It’s open, and unrestricted. We can discuss anyone’s work. The ‘classics’ came to mind simple because we’ve all had a go at them (more or less, as the chase may be), for there are what, 3,500 works in this class. Contemporary works, on the other hand, number in the hundreds of thousand, and without touching the foreigners, we’ll still come short of the same authors and/or books.

 

[Mr Flibble]

The ageless Berenstain Bears books are obviously better for their prose than their plot.

The Berenstain Bears and the Trouble With Commercials particularly ( what a classic!).

*cough*

Anyway, if forced to stick to dead authors, I'll say that I'll agree with josephwise. Shakespear's works to me are rivetting plots, with great character studies. The language is just a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

ps Pilot, I've read a lot lot lot more supposedly 'non classic' stuff than I have 'classic'. My feelings are the same whatever genre / classic status. Character first, plot second, beautiful prose is nice, but without the other two, what's the point?

Of course the classics pretty much have the lot, which is why they are....classics

 

[Nakhlasmoke]

Actually, IdiotsRUs, you are restricted to the Berenstain Bears childrens book series. And.....GO!




-Michelle

So it all comes down to plot, then? *grins*

I think a good plot with weaker word choices will keep me turning pages for longer than a beautiful piece with no substance. but in the end, both will probably get the toss.

Feeling the hate for these either-or questions about writing. Sorry mate, life just isn't that black and white for most people.

 

[pilot27407]

And Michelle, I probably can, throw at you hundreds of foreign, contemp. authors (well regarded ones, translated into English) of whom you’ve never heard of.

 

[Nakhlasmoke]

And Michelle, I probably can, throw at you hundreds of foreign, contemp. authors (well regarded ones, translated into English) of whom you’ve never heard of.

Well done you.

 

[drachin8]

And Michelle, I probably can, throw at you hundreds of foreign, contemp. authors (well regarded ones, translated into English) of whom you’ve never heard of.

I agree pilot that you probably can throw hundreds of foreign, contemporary authors at me of whom I've never heard. And that's okay. We all have hugely different reading experiences in our lives, but our different reading experiences certainly shouldn't discredit the reading experiences of others. That tends to fall into the line of thinking where one declares certain books "bad" and cannot understand how they came to be published and then begins to rant against the "system" keeping "good" books down. It also does not change my current opinion that the elements of writing are too intertwined to actually claim one stronger than the other. I think the reason we love certain plots is because of the wordsmithing behind them (how else can a plot be portrayed if not in words?) and that beautiful phrases are beautiful because of the plots and other writing elements that give them meaning. But again, that is my opinion only, and I do understand I can be a bit ornery on this point. Perhaps a book is like a painting in the aspect that two people can look at the same exact work and see a completely different picture and be touched by completely different elements of that picture.

Art is subjective, and as a result, discussions on art also tend towards subjectivity.




-Michelle

 

[Willowmound]

which of those two would you rather read?

The good one

 

[pilot27407]

Maybe I should have challenged a discussion on Literary vs Commercial.
Literary = character development, situations, descriptions, pictureazing, etc.
Commercial = plot driven
I challenge you, Michelle, to give me a lot of ‘beautifully’ constructed phrases in; The Three Musketeers, Robinson Crusoe, Iliad & Odyssey, Gulliver, Mysterious Island…. Do I need to go on?... But still, books that keeps you ‘riveted’ trough their plot.
Now, let’s, for argument’s sake, find plots in; The Inferno, The Republic, The Prince, The Forty-First, The Golden Age, Talk to me Spinoza… Guess that’s enough, for now.
(MORE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)
Take Twain’s work, most remarkable trough his choice and simplicity of the words used and plot… Where do you have bombastic, ‘wordsmithing’ now?
And Willow, they are all much more than just good,… they are GREAT!... So, of the few ones listed above, which would you chose?

 

[Claudia Gray]

Basically, once anybody starts their argument by talking about how bad William Shakespeare was at something, I know it's time to leave the thread.

 

[pilot27407]

Regretfully I must run, but will be back after 21:30

 

[Willowmound]

That was half an hour ago...